On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
A corespondent sent me this link:
http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf
He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of
alumina goes down
It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the
photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR
camera is measuring.
So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic,
but the IR calculations are OK.
-
Alan,
And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss at the higher
temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate. Everyone seems to be
missing this.
Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT power or heat
loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern
Much of the red glow is confined to the central part of the alumina vessel,
but there are areas where the red glow extends to the exterior surface of
the vessel.
Is all the red glow near the exterior surface just diffusion of red light
from the central part due to the alumina's translucency or
To state it another way:
1) Accurate temperature measurement is NOT the same as power or heat
loss.
2) Levi measured temperature accurately
3) The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a
blackbody
4) Levi then used Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate heat loss,
Jonas:
I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?)
the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases.
Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1
octave) is probably only proportional to the /first/ power, at least
From: David L. Babcock
I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the
strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus,
the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is
probably only proportional to the
(Response in line)
On 10/14/2014 12:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*David L. Babcock
I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due
to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature
increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited
version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like
this are removed.
Where is this edited version? What is the URL?
Which is older?
- Jed
A corespondent sent me this link:
http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf
He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of
alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina
translucency are moot.
- Jed
The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,, and
drops off quicker at higher temperatures.
The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to
0.15), and also varies by temperature.
Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only
There are several problems
1)They had every opportunity to coat the reactor with black refractory
paint. In fact Rossi did this on numerous other tests.
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM
ROSSI
3)There is every reason to believe that the same
The system is way too complex for thermography to be able to deal with. I
note that most black-body radiation for 1400°C:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131016/ncomms3630/images_article/ncomms3630-f4.jpg
has majority of emission at 4um where the alumina transmittance appears
relatively high in
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS
FROM ROSSI
It does not say that anywhere.
3)There is every reason to believe that the same gain would have
been seen in the dummy had they calibrated it high enough.
A
Let me remove a few typos
There are several problems with the testing which cannot be remedied with the
dubious isotope analysis, which is an independent problem.
1)They had every opportunity to coat the reactor with black refractory
paint. In fact Rossi did this on numerous other
From: Jed Rothwell
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM
ROSSI
JR: It does not say that anywhere.
Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations.
Care to share where you saw this?
The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea
Rossi who gradually
brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to
switch off the dummy, and in the
following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge
You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited
version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like
this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited
version.
From: Blaze Spinnaker
Care to share
Of course, Rothwell may be trying to distinguish between Rossi actually
doing it himself of giving the order to do it.
Hmm… flashback a few years …. It depends on what the meaning of the word
'is' is.” I would hope that we are above that kind of double-talk on
vortex, but of course we are not.
And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at
1400C
the main question is why this F**G reactor is at 1400C while it have
less power in...
OK, I'm not an expert, but this challenge my understanding.
2014-10-13 16:35 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com:
The
It now becomes apparent why we suffered through such a long delay in seeing
this paper published. I would love to the original version.
Obviously, they went through several months trying to edit out all of the
“problem” areas. Apparently they missed a few – one of which was the
admission that
On 10/13/2014 11:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Jed Rothwell
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS
FROM ROSSI
JR: It does not say that anywhere.
Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations.
Is this what you're referring to?
In
Jones:
In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that
“Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis
added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded
by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted
Rephrase : And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being
used TO CALCULATE a temperature of 1400C
I'm wondering if the curve where they increased the input power may be useful.
If we regard the previous stable temperature of 1250C as a calibration, then
the DELTA power
Loosely related questionable power generation experiment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCx89BRbVeU
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Randy,
No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is
going
to 1400. And they should have
Jones:
I understand that concept. But just a quick glance at the data seems to
question your conclusion. Why didn’t the 30w input decrease between File1
and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being estimated by
the TI camera if your assumption is correct? I would have expected
We need to be careful when we say the technique for reading the temperature
only measures photons. When I read the documents from the camera vendor site I
came away with the understanding that the detectors that they use in their
instruments actually respond to heat directly. The heat is in
At 10:46 AM 10/13/2014, you wrote:
We
need to be careful when we say the technique for reading the temperature
only measures photons. When I read the documents from the camera
vendor site I came away with the understanding that the detectors that
they use in their instruments actually respond to
Randy,
Let me clear. I think that there was thermal gain here. I have said all
along that there is gain but it could be less than claimed, because many
things do not add up, and the extent of gain is not proved by the
thermography… yet.
And a level of real gain does not mean that the
The cameras were already calibrated by their respective manufacturers as
stated on page 4 of the report, All the instruments used during the
test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were
calibrated in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories. Moreover,
once in Lugano, a
I wanted to add that in the dummy run there was a 10% deviation between
measured and output, assume that the
heat is proportional to the Temperature (which it's not, its T^4) you will
get a 10% error in temperature measurement.
(3.5% if you think in T^4). Now state that at the higher temperatures
31 matches
Mail list logo
